Subjecting constitutional changes approved by Parliament to a mandatory public referendum should be the wayte
Whatever eventually happens to the unprecedented farmer protests that have evoked passions even abroad, it has exposed the flawed nature of democratic principles that we follow. The more mature democracies, which unlike us do not wear the Democracy tag on their sleeves, must be laughing at a political system where laws are passed without consulting those concerned and when the latter protest, they are dubbed, of all the things, “anti-national”!
The faulty method with which the three farm laws were enacted and woven into law with unexceptional and mysterious haste amid the Covid-19 pandemic came to the fore during the negotiations between the government and the protesting farmers. Union ministers admitted to farmer leaders that it was a mistake not to have consulted them when the legislations were being framed and the government agreed to give in writing and even amend some of the provisions – issues which were earlier highlighted by the opposition but were dismissed as frivolous.
Indeed, had a larger debate been carried out earlier, today’s situation would not have arisen; even if the opposition’s concerns had been accepted, much of the sting in the new laws would not have existed to upset the farmers so much. To talk to the farmers with a view to ending the genuine mass protests and then to call them names and accuse them of being manipulated by Maoists is sad, to say the least.
Technically, India is the world’s largest democracy – simply because we have more people living here than anywhere else (except Communist China). Some may feel it is uncharitable to say so but that is where our democratic credentials end. Our periodic elections can certainly make us feel proud; but once a party or group of parties form a government, there is barely any democracy as far as the people are concerned until the next election.
This is not a new defect in the Indian system. It has been in existence since 1947 and, unfortunately, has only got worse in recent decades. Did the authorities in Bhopal ask the people if they were comfortable living near a Union Carbide factory that stored huge quantities of lethal gas? Do administrations care to know if people are comfortable having nuclear plants near their villages?
Does the government believe in having a referendum before taking over farmers’ land in the name of “development”? The city folks will mock at this example; but tell them that their residential areas will be taken over for “development” and they will be up in arms in a far more vocal manner.
If the GST had undergone a credible round of nationwide debate, there would have been no need for all the amendments that followed. Before we change names of cities and streets, at times mindlessly, are people of the area/region asked if the change is needed? Have governments, those in States included, consulted people before doing away with English education? In some cases, years after committing the hara-kiri, some governments made dramatic U-turns.
One can keep giving examples of the lack of participatory democracy. We have come to assume that the rulers know best and it hardly matters what they do for five long years.
The one and only time I remember some kind of a popular vote was taken by any political party was in December 2013 when the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), having dramatically won 28 seats in the 70-member Delhi Assembly, was asked to decide if it will take the support of the Congress which it had opposed in the election. AAP leader and later Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal carried out a Delhi-wide ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ telephonic referendum – and went with the majority decision to align with the Congress. Kejriwal’s move was dismissed as a drama, an attempt to disguise his political ambition. Whatever the truth, it was a rare case of a party asking people who voted for it what it should do.
Our dominant feudal mindset is greatly to blame for this state of affairs. Those at the helm find it contemptuous to keep asking people what is to be done. Such a situation exists in most Indian households too – or more correctly existed widely until recent times. When we were growing up, our parents decided what was good for us in higher studies – science, commerce or humanities! In most Indian homes, the elders still decide who will marry whom, though that trend too is showing signs of cracking.
Can we blame the political elders then for assuming they know all and no one knows national interests better than them? Had such a thinking not been a reality, we would not have tens of thousands of farmers squatting at the borders of Delhi in this biting cold demanding that the farm laws be scrapped. If ego issues were not involved, the government could have explained its point of view most widely and then carried out a referendum on agrarian reforms.
Since we often preach to the world, it is good to learn from those who do things better. Switzerland has what is known as “direct democracy” which allows all citizens over 18 years to take part in decision-making. This is bottom-up democracy – in direct contrast to countries like India. Constitutional amendments approved by Parliament are subject to a mandatory referendum or a nationwide popular vote.
The farmer protests have made it clear that it is high time we move over from representative democracy to participatory democracy – for the country’s good.
(The author is a senior journalist based in New Delhi)
Now you can get handpicked stories from Telangana Today on Telegram everyday. Click the link to subscribe.
Click to follow Telangana Today Facebook page and Twitter .